TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017-18 and the amended provision could not be applied retrospectively as it is only applicable w.e.f 1/4/2021. Being so no disallowance could be made by the AO in respect of PF/ESI paid within the due date of filing return of income. Though, it was beyond the date mentioned in the respective Act. This view of ours is supported by various judgment relied on by the ld. AR. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 657/Bang/2021 - - - Dated:- 31-1-2022 - Chandra Poojari, Member (A) And Beena Pillai, Member (J) For the Appellant : Shambu Sharma, CA For the Respondents : K. Sankarganesh, Jt. CIT(DR) ORDER Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relevant Act. For this purpose he relied on the judgment in the case of Essac Teraoka (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 366 ITR 408 (Kar.), wherein it has held as under: 15. From bare perusal of this provision, it is clear that under the provision, for IT Act, an extension is given to the employer to make payment of contribution to provident fund or any other fund till the due date applicable for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the IT Act in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred and the evidence of such payment is furnished by the assessee along with such return. In short, this provision states, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision contain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll be equal to the contribution payable by the employer. 18. Paragraph-30 of the PF Scheme provides for payment of contributions. Sub-para(1) of paragraph-30 states that the employer shall, in the first instance, pay both the contribution payable by himself (in this Scheme referred to as the employer's contribution) and also, on behalf of the member employed by him directly or by or through a contractor, the contribution payable by such member (in this Scheme referred to as the member's contribution). 19. From bare perusal of sub-para(1) of paragraph-30, it is clear that the word contribution is used not only to mean contribution of the employer but also contribution to be made on behalf of the member employed by the emp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the respondent-revenue. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Further, he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Kar.) has held as under: This clause is inserted by the Finance Act with effect from April 1, 1988. The Explanation to this clause is read very carefully. Due date has been explained stating that: means the date by which the assessee is required as an employer to credit contribution to the employees' account in the relevant fund under any Act, rule or order or notification issued thereunder or under any standing order, award, contract of service or otherwise. Prior to the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for payment of tax at the time of submission of returns under section 139 is permissible only if the statutory liability of payment of provident fund or other contribution funds referred to in clause (b) are paid within the due date under the respective statutory enactments by the assessees as contended by learned counsel for the Revenue is not tenable in law and therefore the same cannot be accepted by us. 9. The ld. AR drew our attention to the deletion of the second proviso to section 43B of the Income-tax Act by the Finance Act 2003, which provision has come into force, with effect from April 1, 2004. The reliance placed upon the decision of the apex court in Allied Motors P. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677 and also on the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. ITO ITA No. 51 54-55/Jodh/2021 [Assessment Year: 2018-19] dated 28.09.2021; 8. CIT v. Aimil Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 9. CIT v. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. [2013] 350 ITR 326 10. CIT vs. Merchem Ltd. 378 ITR 443 (Kerala)) 11. Sagun Foundry (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2017] 291 CTR 557 (Allahabad) 12. Bata India Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020] 180 ITD 464 (Kolkata - Trib.) 13. DCIT vs. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd. [2016] 160 ITD 432 (Visakhapatnam - Trib.) 14. Nuzivedu Swati Coastal Consortium vs. ITO [2015] 62 taxmann.com 258 (Hyderabad - Trib.) 15. DCIT vs. Teesta Valley Tea Co. Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 301 (Kolkata - Trib.) 11. The ld. DR contention is that as per sec. 43B(b) of the Income-tax Act a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
